Talk:Ruin

Generators

Is it right that you can't install a generator in a ruined building? The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 11:11 6 September 2007 (BST)

So, I'll take that as a no... we can install generators in ransacked/ruined buildings >:) The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 12:22 9 September 2007 (BST)

Yes, you've always been able to. I just thought I'd nip that in the bud before it got quoted - there are too many people out there still apparently operating under the "ransacked buildings are completely unsearchable" superstition. --Kevan 12:32, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Well thanks, I was just going on info gleaned from my zombie "listening in"... it seems that everyone is going on the assumption that it's futile to try. My survivor hasn't found a need to try to install a genny in ruins yet The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 12:39 9 September 2007 (BST)

Facts:

1. a RUINed/ransacked building can still be searched for items, and they are found at a reduced rate.
2. a generator can be placed in a RUINed/ransacked building.

Question: Does the powered, RUINed/ransacked building produce items at:

a) the RUINed/ransacked rate?

b) the normal powered building rate?

c) an intermediate rate (perhaps equivalent to a normal, unpowered building)?

--'arm. 07:49, 19 September 2007 (BST)

To recieve answers you need to encourage people to use Search Odds pages. There's next to none activity there. There isn't even much of a data for ransack/ruined rates --~~~~ [talk] 08:48, 19 September 2007 (BST)

It's sad that it isn't contributed to much any more, as I've read through many of the archive pages - no flaming, people working together and putting in their best effort to be productive - makes today's wiki seem disappointingly different by comparison. I'm already collecting search and barricade-attack odds from my characters. I'll probably try to answer the RUIN+POWERED question myself at first, since I'm a bit too busy to get back into wiki-editing again. I was actually thinking of writing a greasemonkey script that would collect search data automatically, so that many people could collect ALL their data, and do so accurately. But then my next thought was that it should be added to the udWidget that makes IWitness screenshots so easy - there's already a graffiti collecting part of the widget (with the option to turn it off). 'arm. 15:44, 19 September 2007 (BST)

It sounds excellent to have it in the widget on auomatic level. Anyway, it would be great if you would submit all info you're going to gather to the SO pages too. Though if too busy to sort it through, you can just dump it to my talk page --~~~~ [talk] 16:54, 19 September 2007 (BST)

Ruined with cades

The southall mansion has one corner ruined but it says its VH barricaded, is this possible?--Firequag 17:54, 26 August 2007 (BST)

Yes, zombies got inside the large building through another corner --~~~~_T^''' 11:17, 27 August 2007 (BST)

Repair Rules

The article doesn't say, can you repair a ruined building (back to ransacked status) with zombies still inside? The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 16:06 17 August 2007 (BST)

No. It works absolutely the same way as ransack - no repair with zombies inside --~~~~_T^''' 20:20, 17 August 2007 (BST)

Predictions

This will force survivors to move to the safe suburbs, no more trying to live in disputed territory like Mockridge Heights. SSZ here we come The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 14:53 16 August 2007 (BST)

I'd say it's just about being more obvious now, when the suburb is a ghost town. As far as there aren't any other applications with ruining, like those that are discussed in suggestions, it's just the same ol' ransack that may be noticed from distance. Not really a big thing--~~~~_T^''' 15:08, 16 August 2007 (BST)

It's going to require every active barricading survivor to carry a 16% encumbrance item (that's 8 FAK's I've got to do without)... my guy just burned through a days AP looking for one... all the while the size of the are being ruined is growing, with no way for me to help take it back. No choice but to head for the mall (much as I loath them), and abandon the low resource areas The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 16:06 17 August 2007 (BST)

i don't buy that. what this change requires is for survivors to up their game. there are some well organised groups, formal and informal, out there. but for the most part, the burbs i've been in, the humans are light-years behind the zombies in terms of effective organisation, communication and propaganda.

and THAT is the problem, not a game mechanic. if humans would get into well-coordinated groups, if they'd put aside ego -- if they didn't need to see their name in lights each with own with pet group, 4, 6, 12 different groups in one burb... or at least make sure those groups were all coordinated and cooperative en masse... and especially humans need to get their butts onto IRC or MSN group chats or something... draw up battle strategies. and impliment them, coordinating timed sorties into zombie controlled territory, everyone communicating LIVE during the operations... then making sure enough people are playing and in communication day round -- whether forums or in game -- to watch barricades, do general maintenance stuff, etc. etc.

see... this is a significant zombie buff, yup... but it's not a game-breaking change. if you're a survivor, get out the whiteboards and markers and suburb maps. get organised. and get connected. and get to work taking back malton.

but don't listen to me, i'm just a newbie....... --WanYao 22:53, 17 August 2007 (BST)

i don't see neither zombie buff no survivor buff here. as i already said it's just a ransack that is seen from the street, nothing more --~~~~_T^''' 09:46, 18 August 2007 (BST)

Zombie organisation is always easier than Human organisation simply because there's motive. If a Zombie kills a Human, that's one Human who's out of play. However, if a Human kills a Zombie... That's one Zombie who has to spend 1-5 AP standing up again... Whoop-de-doo. So there's no incentive for Humans to organise and clean an area out of Zombies, simply because it can't be done (although recent changes to the Fort might change that). However, Zombie's can clean out, kill, ransack and ruin an area to render it completely ineffective to Humans and (here's the key) earn a boatload of XP doing all of that. Humans simply have no similar option. "Hey guys, let's make an organised attack on those 100 Zombies standing outside" earns XP but doesn't have any incentive because they'd all just stand back up again. There's also no point in doing it as a team simply because there's no need. The things we can do as teams though aren't that motivating. "Hey guys, let's get organised and... repair all the buildings in this area". For what? 2 XP each? I mean, "eh". It's not exactly exciting stuff. The only saving grace is that currently, toolboxes don't get used up so eventually they'll become like wirecutters. Everyone has a pair but no-one can remember what for. DarkUnderlord 10:01, 18 August 2007 (BST)

No, survivors don't organize because they have about a million ways to do it in-game like talking, mobile phones, radios, and spraypaint. Zombies got organized in the metagame because they *had* to or else they'd burn all their AP standing up headshots and beating on barricades. From what I've seen, at least half of the survivors in this game do so primarily to role-play. They're upset when zombies come in and mess up their fun of playing fort (literally in the case of Creedy and Perryn). Zombies play the game to eat harmans because there's nothing else for them to do.--Insomniac By Choice 10:12, 18 August 2007 (BST)

(i hate edit conflicts...anyway...) re: the change, it DOES make life more difficult for survivors, how can one say otherwise? it's now harder to reclaim buildings... you have to sacrifice something to retake a building, and 16% is a lot. thus, it's a zombie buff. i think it's a very balanced buff, but it's still a buff. but, as i said, with better organisation it's not that big a deal. get a team of survivors together, go on a clearing/strafing run... say you have 5 or 6 people... only 1 or 2 need to have toolboxes, not everyone. organise, communicate, specialise... but my prediction is: this won't happen.

and darkunderlord i disagree with you completely. what makes this game interesting, for me anyway, as a survivor is "fighting the fight", humans vs. zombies. of course you can't win, that's the central ethos of urban dead. by your logic it seems that there is no point to playing a survivor, except fetishisation of ennui? just random scrounging and healing and cading? well, yeah, how BORING. as a survivor i want to fight for territory, i want to work hard to actively defend the territory we do have... to me, that's the game. there are lots of ways of playing the game, all are valid -- including my vision.

as for communications... whether humans have better in-game communications than zeds or not, that doesn't in any way refute my assertion that human communication and organisation could be better, in-game or metagame. and in so improving said communications, humans would be more successful at taking and holding territory. or that whinging about the toolbox change is, just, well whinging... [edited --WanYao 10:56, 18 August 2007 (BST) ]

As said above, zombies can swarm over the whole of malton now and basically... win. Ruining NT buildings with a swarm (Leaving no necrotech syringes left) makes the area... dead, literally. Most people wont carry around a 16% item, let alone waste ap on 1... 1 exp... Eventually... (Months, maybe a year unless something comes along to balance this) zombies will destroy the remaining fringes of survivors. All i'm saying is, this ruining thing is like a plauge... Shearbank is a dead town now with no survivors to revive zombies (And no necrotech to supply syringes) every building is ruined, and even if one zed remains, then the building cant be fixed up... we cant freerun inside and baricade now, its... doomsday--Slift 17:08, 25 August 2007 (BST)

In 4 block ruined buildings how are Survivors supposed to take control, when all our killing dumping and work is ruined because we can't barricade one corner of the building because a few of the hundred or so zombies survived, so they all stand up using there 1-6AP (Oh noes!) and all walk back in that one corner. Gee I'm glad I spent all that time organizing and planning. There is no way to defend four block buildings with ransack going. Something needs to be implemented to help survivors in that sort of situation, and as stated above. Once the N.T. buildings go in a suburb thats it for us.--Annun 17:26, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Now that ruin can nullify Free Running, we zombies have a really powerful weapon against survivors since wee can now cripple survivor traffic through an area. It should be interesting to see how this goes and how organized hordes like LUE use this to their advantage. One thing for sure though: The Forts are deathtraps if a sizable horde manages to take control of the area around them. --Adrian Steiner 12:58, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Nope, it doesn't nullify Free Run. Read carefully - all it does is move you out of building. as it is ruined - most certainly it would have no cades, so you use 1 AP to get in and continue free running. --~~~~_T^''' 19:49, 25 August 2007 (BST)

I give a point on how viral this thing is, If we assume all dangerous suburbs have (At least, if not more) had their N.T. buildings ruined, that means no revives can go on. Take Dakerstown for example, it and its neighbors are all classified as dangerous. If we assume that the NT buildings in those areas are ruined, no revives can be conducted without leaving a person critically endangered. Lone survivors will NOT transverse 20+ blocks to shack in a building just to revive 1 zombie at 11AP. Let alone more than one at the cost of +11 for each. And the problem stems from that, Even IF someone did run to the buildings, crossing un-freerunable blocks to get there (And possibly being attacked) theres the fact that they have to travel BACK to get more syringes to keep from being killed for loosely barricading and fixing a building (As zombies will attack the building they see fixed up) In the end, survivors are played by people, most want to keep their character unzombiefied as long as possible so wont take a risk. --Slift 07:15, 26 August 2007 (BST)

So what did really changed when the same was with ransack? next to nothin. You only need to travel from the streets now, that's all --~~~~_T^''' 07:58, 26 August 2007 (BST)

Wow, this update is the very essence of pwnage. I have spent the past few days dead in shearbank as no DARIS reviver is alive or able to get close. I finally got revived, only to find there is no way to actually freerun around the suburb because everything is fucked! I'm a PKer, not a bloody mechanic! I shouldn't have to haul around a bloody toolbox for 16% just so I can get around safely. And how am I meant to off survivor scum when they are all bloody dead? Having said that, it does make the game more interesting, but bearing in mind that Zombies now not only have the ability to get back to it for a maximum of 6 AP instead of waiting around for a bloody needle, but can trash EVERYTHING and then just stand in it to maintain the fact that it's trashed, I think humans need a more effective way of putting zombies down.

Look at this way, take 5 humans and 10 zeds. 10 Zeds come along and kill the 5 humans in an NT building. 5 humans then have to spend at least a day (more with this new rule) waiting for a revive. Humans then need to get heals and restock (another day) and then attack all at the same time the following day, 4 of which need to be armed to the teeth, one with a toolbox. Even then, the restock may take 2-3 days depending on how well prepared the humans are, and the attack might go askew as these things invariably do (65% to hit my arse), and if one Zombie survives, or another walks in, the entire 3-6 days to attack back have been pointless. Meanwhile, what have the Zed players had to do? Sit around swaying and typing "Mrh?". Yes, because this sounds fair. I say more zombie hunting skills! Or a machine gun!--Gregg bayes 14:51, 30 August 2007 (BST)Gregg Bayes

The biggest advantage for zombies with this update is that they can spot buildings containing humans right from the streets. I'll explain: If a suburb is (almost) completely ruined and some survivors are able to repair and barricade a building, that building will pop out. The background color changes and the zombies in the area just head to it to ruin it again.--Moran

Moran, Exactly. It gives the advantage to whoever is already in control in a suburb. It helps survivors find entry points when they have control of a suburb, but making the ruined buildings stick out, you just head to that one, and you're guaranteed to get in and free run to the EHB's. Where the zombies are on top, it gives them the advantage of knowing where the barricades still are without having to search around. It's a crap update, suburbs either become survivor strongholds or zombie wastelands... it's almost impossible to maintain a balance in-between (which is where I liked to hang out, as a survivor, away from the mega-hordes and trenchy mall-rats) The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 00:57 7 September 2007 (BST)

Maybe its me but I find it funny about two section down theres a zombie complaining that Ruining stuff is ineffective. While you guys are complaining it gives them too much of an advantage :P ShatteredFoX 05:56, 13 April 2008 (BST)

Different people have different opinions. Good observation :P -- boxy ^{talk • i} 06:58 13 April 2008 (BST)

Display Bug

I note that ruined buildings are not differently colored when using Safari.--Qazwsx 17:55, 16 August 2007 (BST)

this is a problem with safari and is fixed in safari 3, the beta of which you can download here: http://www.apple.com/safari/download/ --Tekgo 07:24, 22 August 2007 (BST)

Confused

So if you enter a ruin can you free-fun into a EHB building like a mall that is next to it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TerminalFailure (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Yes, free running out of a ruin (into the mall) works as normal. It's only when you try to free run into a ruin that you slip and fall outside -- boxy • talk • 16:14 21 September 2007 (BST)

Search messages

I didn't quiet know how to include it in the article (or if it's even worth it), but I searched a ruined NT today and got the message "The building being ruined makes it hard to find anything. You pick through the debris, but find nothing." Perhaps once a large list of possible messages is compiled they could be considered for inclusion. 'arm. 06:36, 26 September 2007 (BST)

just for the record, this is only message for failed ruin search --~~~~ [talk] 11:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruin: AP Innefficient?

I've just noticed with my survivor character... It takes 6ish AP to ruin a building but only 1 AP to repair it. Does anyone else think that ruining a building is inefficient? Sure, it signals to zombies that large buildings are open, but on small buildings it's terribly inefficient. Besides, how powerful is negating free-running and being dropped outside the building if you can still use it as an entry point? --Secruss 23:22, 26 October 2007 (BST)

you are correct... it is only really useful for distinguishing fallen buildings from targets ... and is that worth 6 AP when i can just walk there and see?? --WanYao 21:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Now since 28th May 2008 change, a ruined building is more difficult to repair the more it has been ruined. I've seen costs up to 7AP per repair Scarbrow 18:28, 3 June 2008 (BST)

A new section?

I was thinking about putting in a section on the controversy surrounding Ruin -- from day 1 with survivors whinging about toolboxes, to the huge AP imbalance, to the fact that seeing as it gives survivors visible entry points (though it also distinguishes targets for zombies, admittedly)... all in making it a survivor buff -- not a zombie buff -- in many peoples' eyes... good idea or not? --WanYao 21:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Even Kevan has said it helps survivors more, but that was before the free running change(which really hasn't changed anything unless you're a doorknob).--Karek^maps?! 07:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It did changed something - pinatas wouldn't be possible without this and these ruined EHBs do piss off survivors. As an answer to Wan Yao: no i don't think it's a good idea. This is an informational page, not a right place for subjective rant --~~~~ [talk] 08:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a page dedicated completely to just that would be better. Also, pinatas have never and will never be common, transrace tasks never really are.--Karek^maps?! 08:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)"

it would not be a subjective rant, sheesh. it would be a balanced assesment of the different points of view. but considering that ruin appears on the surface to be a very pro-zombie thing, i thought it might be a good idea to give information showing that that is under dispute by many. perhaps i will whip something up later. --WanYao 11:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A section examining ruin from a tactical point of view does sound interesting, so if it's balanced and not insulting, then it should be a positive contribution to the wiki. --Toejam 12:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Edit. A he-said she-said type page would probably not be a positive thing.

What about the zombie whinging? Were you going to mention that at all, WanYao? Christ, just keep these sorts of pages to descriptions of the thing being discussed, and tactical considerations. They're not a place for zombie vs. survivor dick waving -- boxy • talk • 23:27 1 December 2007 (BST)

what is you people's PROBLEM??? why does everyone STOKE the fucking drama??? i never even brought up the drama, i talked about adding something discussing the tactical implications and the debate/sometime controversy surrounding ruin. but i don't even want to bother now, with all this negativity and name-calling, or presumptions of name-calling to be, sheesh... --WanYao 13:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry WanYao, caught me at a bad time, and pushed my buttons. I did my share of whinging about toolboxes... but it was always in response to the huge amounts of zombie whinging at the time about how this was some sort of a mega-survivor buff. I've since come to recognise ruin as an excellently balanced innovation to the game, that makes it much more interesting for all. I dunno where Kevan got the idea from (the suggestions system would kill it with a vengeance, IMO), but it was inspired. Anyway, sorry... do carry on -- boxy • talk • 13:42 3 December 2007 (BST)

I'd challenge Karek's point about pinatas never becoming common. They've become one of Red Rum's favourite party tricks, and the Eastonwood Ferals have begun to use them to combat barricade strafing. --Sir Bob Fortune ^{RR - FEZ - ATO} 12:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't stay in Eastonwood much and Red Rum usually stays to a small handful of buildings(in my experience). That would make it less than 110 in 10,000 at any point in time and that is most definitely uncommon. Ruin, in comparison, is more estimable to be in 2,000-4,000 buildings at any point in time which is common.--Karek^maps?! 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Difference Between Ransack/Ruin

What's the difference between a ransacked and a ruined building? From my understanding ransack: prevents barricading, requires a toolbox to repair, lowers search odds, and can only be repaired if no zombies are present. Further ruining a building: makes the damage visible and prevents free running into the building (now with a potential HP loss from falling). Is that the only difference? Or are there effects I'm not aware of? Are the search rates the same between ransacked and ruined buildings? --Ms.Panes 09:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Search rates: nobody knows. I'm the only one who supplyed data for ruined searches, but i never encountered ransacked-but-not-ruined for data from them. However, whenever this is needed, i assume that searh rates are same in ruin and ransack. --~~~~ [talk] 11:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ransack didn't require a toolbox to repair, I assume that hasn't changed -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:27 31 January 2008 (BST)

Spending more AP Repairing

When you have to spend more than 1 AP to repair a building, you must being a Portable Generator to light the building (which will have fallen into darkness by then) before you can start work.

I have only this to add: the search rates for Fuel and Generators should be more frequent (if they aren't already) to counter-balance this a little. Pakopako 14:51, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I don't think so. I repaired a hospital today (cost 2AP) and I don't remember seeing a fueled generator there (I'm not sure, though). It's probably just the dark buildings that need a generator to repair. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:20, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I have spent up to 7AP in repairing a ruined building and I didn't need to get a generator. On the other side, another building needed a generator but only 5AP Scarbrow 18:28, 3 June 2008 (BST)

it was a bug and was fixed --~~~~ [talk] 20:46, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Which part of it was the bug? Do we have to have a generator repair any ruined building above 1AP? Or merely the dark, ruined buildings (no matter what the AP)? Or is it only dark, ruined, over-1-AP buildings which need the generator? --Jen 00:38, 4 June 2008 (BST)

You only need a generator in Dark buildings.--Karek^maps?! 03:31, 4 June 2008 (BST)

Ruin Building Watch

I was thinking about making a new page dealing with Ruined Buildings since the 'increased AP for long ruined building' update. I put it in Talk:Suggestions but was told this is the proper place for it. Let me know what you think before I make the page. Thanks. It's sort of like the suburb red/green map, except simpler, dealing only with the state of ruin of buildings --Tselita 15:04, 25 June 2008 (BST)

See below:

Timestamp:	Tselita 17:52, 23 June 2008 (BST)
Type:	New Wiki Idea
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	I was thinking of making a wiki page which would be dedicated to keeping track of the repair costs for buildings throughout Malton, separated into repair costs for Dark buildings and repair costs for normal buildings. So far I haven't found there to be -any- cap, so this might make it easier to find out if there is one, in addition to being a good general idea (as is the suburb map reports). I wasn't sure whether to make this an in-game suggestion or not, but since the wiki could probably do the same thing without increasing the server load a lot (plus I wasn't sure where there would be an equivalent database to Necrotech's database for the zombie spread), that's why I suggested doing it on the wiki. Basically, it would work by listing all 100 suburbs, and under each suburb it would list the buildings which are currently ruined. Next to it would be a spot to put the current AP cost. If a ruined building is also a Dark building, there would be a D after it. This does serve a purpose - it would give us a better idea of the caps (if any) that ruined buildings have since the new update, it would give Survivors a better idea of where reclamation efforts should be placed, and would give zombies a better idea of where their strongest defensable locations, so which ruined buildings they should place zombies in in order to make repairing as costly as possible for survivors. Not everything in Urban Dead is going to be shootemup and bite bite bite. Besides, that's a good example of 'scouting' - look and report. Discuss

The work needed to update this would be unbearable. You are talking about 500-1000 entries, each of which changes (AP increase, or full repair / fresh ruining) on a daily basis, if not more often. Its just not practical to track every ruined building vai manual editing of a wiki page.
If what you are interested in is the max AP needed to repair a building, why not simply put that in the description for the construction skill, and let people update that ONE figure when they find new examples that take more AP (ideally with a screenshot link)?  Swiers 20:22, 25 June 2008 (BST)

How to repair building which costs more than 50AP

I've spotted a building (censored for tactical reasons) which requires 58AP to repair it. How can this building be repaired given that the maximum AP a survivor has at any time is 50AP? Has anyone repaired the building? Is it that you go into minus AP? --Zuton 20:49, 12 August 2008 (BST)

Yep, you can spend more AP than you have, IF you are spending it on a single action. This has always been the case, from way back when the game started and a zombie could spend 2 AP to move when they only had 1 AP left, to spending 10AP to revive / stand up when you have 9 or less left, to manufacturing syringes for 20 AP when you have 19 or less left. No difference here.  Swiers 22:20, 12 August 2008 (BST)

The funny things is that you can do with your last AP and get into -57AP! That means no turns for you for the whole next day (% --~~~~ [talk] 21:18, 15 August 2008 (BST)

This is ridiculous. I'm in a safe (ish) building trying to fix a burb and next door is a building requiring 68 AP to repair! If I repair it i'm dead for sure. Why can't I just spent 10 AP to work on the bulding a little bit each day .. why must I fix the whole thing in one marathon fixing session? --Elingold 18:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Because zombies can't make it HARDER to repair in little, easy chunks. They had to keep that building ruined non-stop for 68 days for it to get to the point it did. If surviors could safely undo 10 days of that ruining whenever they wanted, no building would ever stay ruined for long.
The solution is to stop being a pussy and just do the repair. If you can get somebody to move in with you and barricade (so very hard for survivor to organize, isn't it, given how they can actually TALK) you may well live. And if you do die, so what? You log in when you have 10 or so AP again, move to a revive point, and get revived while you wait for you AP to build up. Repeat this process, and you can fix quite several VERY ruined buildings each week. Even if they get ruined again, the cost to repair them will now be down in the single digits, making them MUCH easier to reclaim them (without risking another death & revive) the second time around.  Swiers 01:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's comparable to the barricade problem for zombies. A lone zombie can never knock down a EHB buildings barricades and have enough AP left to do any damage once inside (if they even get that far). One has to do the barricade busting, the others do damage. So it is with ruins, one survivor has to do the repairs, others have to make it safe for the repairer (or revive them). I like a city where substantial sections of the map are long ruined ghost towns. They can be some of the safest places for a survivor to hide, actually ;) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:08 9 December 2008 (BST)

Search Rates

Ruins lower these, right? It doesn't say on the page. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:10, 29 July 2009 (BST)

I think they stay the same as ransacked/not-lit. --ϑϑℜ 03:12, 29 July 2009 (BST)